Comments (Page 431)

Which is you saying it was a weak worm, with your logic, youve always put slender as "puny"

Me or Mr.Happy? Because, technically, I don't believe I said that.

Double post, my bad.

S-Rex, you always ask us for evidence for our claims. We have evidence. What's yours? I'm asking that out of sheer curiousty. 

A Deltdadromeus is gracile, wouldn't call it a pushover. Same with Albertosaurus and dozens of other animals. Plus, like I said, an animal that outweighs an elephant isn't a pushover. 

You want the dictionary definition?

Gracile- slender, slight

Synonyms- agile, light, spry, nimble, etc

I remember you personally saying its arms and claws were probably not used in combat, i usually go by past and current experiences of what you say.

6-7 tons IS a pushover in terms of the largest carnivores as you put it, i stand at 12 tons average.

If I'm not mistaken, a pushover would be incapable of defending itself. With those claws, it's sheer physical size, and possibly the ability to change the sail's colour, Spino would be no pushover. Gracile, perhaps. Pushover, hell no. 

A 6-7 ton animal is not a pushover. Go up to any elephant and see if you can overpower it. 

Also, considering the new material is 40 percent complete, and when combined with the holotype and other finds it measures 60 percent complete, I'd call that legit evidence.

well i guess i am in denial because i dont trust he new models. there is no true,legit evidence to back it up. and you did say that the new model suggests it was a pushover. but i am not trying to fight.

Gracile is the definition of pushover i will add. I do not agree with this thing one bit nor your assumption, so ill leave it at that.

^^ Sounds great! :)

*grabs popcorn* 

Every little bit of info is appreciated.

TK, it means he's in denial.

And TK, Hartman did a skeleton model(bottom) in which he gave it slightly longer legs...

And, as I said, it isn't a pushover.

@ spino rex, what does that mean?

rex fan, the real spino had longer limbs and could rear up to slash. and it dosent look like a pushover to me.

Yes... the new "mishap" suggests it.

Never said it was a pushoever, but the new skeleton(which can't be denied) suggests it...

I dont remember it being proven to have an elongated ribcage in the first place, so whats the point in that being your arguement towards why you think it was a pushover? 

This gonna be entertaining (In a good, positive way). Interesting points will be made, I think.

^Sweet! Can't wait to read it.

Thanks everyone!!! I guess I'll continue it next week, when I finish all the stuff I have to do.

I do Allo, but I don't really use my account.

Interesting topic, wonder which week I'm in? This seems to be a tough one though

Id love to see riders!

Should I be worried if the picture doesn't disturbed me? BTW,are you an ifunny user, because I noticed the ifunny link at the bottom. I'll sub to you if you are

Thanks and 7.5 isn't bad at all.

Well, I'm screwed... Ah well, here I go.

Spinosaurus was used to the water, and spent most of its time there. Hunting large fish and other aquatic animals, it made a good living in the harsh, carnivore-filled landscape. It most likely came up to the shore quite a bit, to sleep, eat large meals, breed, and move to another body of water.

Spinosaurus was pretty large (however, I believe the limbs were longer than shown in the picture), and would've put up a great fight against other carnivores.

Spinosaurus was able to walk bipedally, and this would greatly help in a fight.

Tyrant, I didn't say you didn't do good. You did.

Id like to see it.

Thanks :) and I'll say it was a 7.5/10.

Will post my debate later when I can post pictures.

Carnosaur, snakes may be somewhat robust in someways, but they have to have extra muscles along their bodies to move because they don't have arms or legs. Spinosaurus did, so it's body overall could be more gracile(and mosasaurs were fully aquatic and could simply swim).

Wow, I'll be honest, I was expecting a lot more expierences. Guess I'm lucky(plus I live in an area surrounded by museums).

Nevermind......-_-

Ah man, I thought I did good. Oh we'll, UCMP is good. 

Well, I forgot it about it as well, but I'm dying to see the future of it! :D

I've been to a single museum in my life, the Milan museum of natural history. Not a lot of dinosaur mounts I should say, but at least I got to see a nice T.rex mount :D

I think UCMP won this debate. Can't to start mine!

CARNOSAUR - Thank you so very much! I was having trouble with the estimates online and yours falls within the spectrums very nicely! I greatly appreciate this data! :)

GIGADINO - The information you've provided is quite nice! I like the comparisons you made between other animals! :)

You missed my point again. That was just an example. I said 8-9 t because the margin of error can be great, thus, rather than saying that it was 8,4 t, I said 8-9 t-ish. For example, masses for MUPCv-ch1 rage from 6,4 to 7,4 t, according to Hartman, so a 1 t range is more wise than saying that an excint animal was, for example, 8,4 t. 

Wich specimen is your 13 m T.rex? I don't recall anything about it. 

The largest Carcharodontosaurus is SMG din-1. Its size is unknow, as it's really fragmentary, but, if we assume that it was big-headed like Giganotosaurus, I estimated it at 12,4-12,6 m long, so, considering the margin of error, the individual variability etc a good size range is 12-13 m and 7-8 t If it was small-headed like Acrocanthosaurus, it could reach 13,9 m long (so 13-14 m), but a such build isn't so likely, as Acrocanthosaurus is less close than Giganotosaurus to Carcharodontosaurus, plus Acrocanthosaurus wasn't a derivated Carcharodontosaurid, while Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were. Carnosaur, I specified somewhere that I was talking about max sizes. For example, when I talked about T.rex, I said 'estimates for Sue', wich is the largest T.rex. However, I'll change it, and I'll write nax sizes.

Whilst I do want to see it, if it proves to be not as interesting for you anymore I won't annoy you about making it.